>Is the Occupation of Afghan America's Opium war?
The Eternal Anglo managed to turn a gigantic civilization into his plaything after a short war that was more like a demonstration of firepower than anything else. You burgers have been pretending to fight in those barren mountains for more than a decade, and it achieved nearly nothing, other than making the CIA rich. No, they aren't similar at all.
>Were the sacrifices of the Americans in the Pacific war invalidated when America allowed the communist to take over china and 2/3s of Korea?
Honestly, the Japanese Empire's war seem to be a completely different war that just happened around the same time there was a war on the other side of Eurasia. Therefore it shouldn't be watched as just an other front of ww2, but in a context of its own. A war between Japan and the USA has been in the making since the Russo-Japanese war, but remember that originally the attack on Pearl Harbor was just one part of their push for the Pacific, and even the push for the Pacific was just a new "phase" of their conquests. The "first phase" was Korea, and the "second phase" was China. Of course they started the "third phase" even before they finished the "second phase". The war in Europe was a perfect opportunity for that, and the USA also provoked them into an attack.
Now, we can start arguing if it was just of them to start building the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, but history is about strength and willpower, not justice.
>Why didn't the State department allow the soviets to occupy Japan the way they sold out China to the communist by pulling the rug of support from under the feet of the nationalist?
Because there wasn't a strong communist movement that the commies in the State Department could have used for this purpose, and it would have been beyond them to tell the armed forces not to occupy Japan but instead let the soviets roll in. After all it wasn't an option in Europe either.